Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

I hope your day is going as good as mine, and life is treating you well.

That is a popular valid argument. From that argument, the thought that comes to mind is what did the Founder get from his teachers who where far more conservative and strict in doling out information? It isn't hard to figure out that wasn't much in comparison. The Founder had the genius to circumvent that obstacle, via training himself. Unlike today, during the Founder's time a seminar circuit didn't exist to support his development in pre-war or post war Aikido. Who would he go to at the time to teach him what Takeda did not? He had no resources outside Takeda, the Founder was left to his own devices to learn what Takeda with held from him. That alone makes a person more hungry. In the case of the Founder's students, I don't believe the Founder held back information. I do believe a wider generation gap existing between the Founder and his students than the Founder and his teacher.

There's a pretty good record of who Takeda produced and what they could do - Ueshiba among others. Who did the Founder produce of that level?

Quote:

Jackie Adams wrote:

I have read articles that argue some of the Founder's students both pre and post war had excelled remarkably in skill equaling to that of the Founder's. Suggesting to me, these student then became in the same shoes the Founder was in after the Founder's death. If you have the desire, the hunger, you will improve with or without a teacher. I don't think too many people think that having a teacher pass away early in a person's training places a person in the same situation as if the teacher withheld information.

As I said - that's where we disagree - I think that I've seen almost all of the big names, in person, and I just don't see it, in them and (more importantly), in their students.

There's a pretty good record of who Takeda produced and what they could do - Ueshiba among others. Who did the Founder produce of that level?

As I said - that's where we disagree - I think that I've seen almost all of the big names, in person, and I just don't see it, in them and (more importantly), in their students.

Best,

Chris

Arguing your opinion would be disrespectful and ignorant on my part. I must apology for I wasn't clear. The Founder took upon the responsibility for his own training and excelled because of his aptitude and mindset. He was a man in a time different with a different way of life than from his students. I recognize you feel the top students of the Founder didn't make par in your experience and knowledge base. There is no reason for me to argue an opinion you are entitled too.

I was thinking more inline of Shioda, and Saito off the top of my head. Let me welcome anyone who wished to add to this list. I feel both these men where training in a time there was more information available to them. Valid information useful to support independent study, than being solely dependent on the Founder. I can't say they did or didn't explore other martial arts information to gain knowledge they felt the Founder omitted. Shioda did have a limited time with the Founder as a teacher. Here Shidoa can be considered similar to a student who theoretically the Founder withheld information. Shioda's skill didn't deteriorate, it improved greatly. Here we are looking at the benefits and development of a student who lacked much information and still developed great skill. Was he better or as good as the Founder? Good question, I don't know. It is evident he did improve with limited knowledge and instruction from the Founder. It answers the question for me, the Founder didn't with hold information.

Lastly, a teacher can tell a student everything the teacher knows. The student's ability to process the information and use it may be limited. The student in this case when in comparison to others feels the teacher wasn't forthcoming with their knowledge.

Well, I need to wrap things up on the wonderful Monday. Hope everyone enjoys the rest of the day.

Shioda did have a limited time with the Founder as a teacher. Here Shidoa can be considered similar to a student who theoretically the Founder withheld information. Shioda's skill didn't deteriorate, it improved greatly. Here we are looking at the benefits and development of a student who lacked much information and still developed great skill. Was he better or as good as the Founder? Good question, I don't know. It is evident he did improve with limited knowledge and instruction from the Founder. It answers the question for me, the Founder didn't with hold information.

Shioda was actually with the Founder longer than almost anybody (except maybe Saito and Kisshomaru) - at a time when the Founder was very active.

As to how well he did - I'd suggest you look into Shioda's relationship with Kodo Horikawa.

Shioda was actually with the Founder longer than almost anybody (except maybe Saito and Kisshomaru) - at a time when the Founder was very active.

As to how well he did - I'd suggest you look into Shioda's relationship with Kodo Horikawa.

Best,

Chris

Mr. Li. It is wonderful to read your response.

Didn't I mention Shioda having left the Founder at some point which is the same in a sense as a teacher withholding information from a student? huh? My apologies. I believe it was 8 years for Shioda and Chiba was 7 years as uchideshi. Tadashi Abe, he was a 10 year student? I am not sure if you have the opportunity to experience Minoru Mochizuki, and Kenji Tomiki? But, I would have loved to experience these greats. Who where the great senseis that you experienced if you are willing to share?

I am not familiar with that relationship. A friend of mine who studied another martial art for decades becoming the schools top student said his sensei told him once he held back the secrets of the art from him on purpose. Upset my friend protested that it was such a dishonest and diabolical thing to do. Demanding an explanation from his sensei feeling betrayed to why he withheld all the secrets of the art, the sensei replied calmly, did I really need to tell you?

Life is universal. Hard work and dedication and a mind set of perseverance has always been a recipe for success. Taking a loss and turning it into an opportunity to improve and do better, to get back on that horse when bucked off is another universal truth. The Wright Brothers, Edison and Bell are wonderful examples of people who stuck with it and figured it out on their own. The incredible achievements of these men is testimony to what is possible. The Founder too had the character and mind set to be independent. I don't think that is a luxury only afforded to the few. Everyone has the ability to achieve great skill if they are willing to put the time and energy into it. Another wonderful universal aspect of life that leads to success and the Founder is the proof.

I hope everyone had a great day.

Last edited by jackie adams : 04-02-2012 at 07:38 PM.
Reason: added: "and the Founder is the proof."

Didn't I mention Shioda having left the Founder at some point which is the same in a sense as a teacher withholding information from a student? huh? I believe it was 8 years for Shioda and Chiba was 7 years as uchideshi. Tadashi Abe, he was a 10 year student?

Abe was ten years before he left for Europe - much of that in Tokyo, and Ueshiba wasn't in Tokyo at that time. When Chiba was in Tokyo Ueshiba was not that active in teaching, although he was there a third to half the time.

When Shioda was there Ueshiba was personally involved in training the students - there were no other teachers, really.

Not that he was necessarily better than anybody else, but I thought it was kind of incredible to portray Shioda as someone who had a limited time with Ueshiba.

Quote:

Jackie Adams wrote:

I am not familiar with that relationship. A friend of mine who studied another martial art for decades becoming the schools top student said his sensei told him once he held back the secrets of the art from him on purpose. Upset my friend protested that it was such a dishonest and diabolical thing to do. Demanding an explanation from his sensei feeling betrayed to why he withheld all the secrets of the art, the sensei replied calmly, did I really need to tell you?

And again - if they're not getting it then, yes, they needed to tell them.There's nothing wrong with figuring it out on your own - but that would show in the results. The proof is in the pudding - it's meaningless to talk about creativity when your kid is flunking basic math.

It's meaningless to talk about creativity when your kid is flunking basic math.

Chris

Ooooooo what you said!

Requirement #1: Teacher with adequate knowledge/mastery of subject matter and ability to lay out that knowledge in a comprehendable manner. (No magic fairy dust which will learn for/or motivate students necessary.)

Requirement #2: Student of average intelligence with basic needs met (not physically or emotionally starved or abused) willing to do the work to learn.

Failure to exhibit learning indicates an absence of one reqirement or the other 99% of the time. Excuses and blame abound. But in the achievers you will not find an absence of either requirement, or the presence of excuses and blame justifying failure to achieve.

Today there may be a culture of entitlement that may be undermining. But in pre/post war Japan I sincerely doubt it, which indicates a lack of Requirement #1.

Creativity is swell, talent is swell. Mozart didn't get to be MOZART by bypassing requirement 1 and 2.

Even among genius there is a bell curve, but genius doesn't bypass the essentials. The "giants" stood on the shoulders of the knowledge passed down before them. To pretend otherwise does a disservice to both those in the past and future.

There's a pretty good record of who Takeda produced and what they could do - Ueshiba among others. Who did the Founder produce of that level?

As I said - that's where we disagree - I think that I've seen almost all of the big names, in person, and I just don't see it, in them and (more importantly), in their students.

Best,

Chris

Chris;

Sort of stating the obvious to someone who has already considered it but the biggest problem is seeing the various students and of course Ueshiba M. and Takeda themselves at comparable times. It is really hard to make comparisons especially when some are long dead and legend has taken over.

What were Takeda or Ueshiba really capable of doing - was Shioda in his prime that much less then Ueshiba? Or conversely were certain student's capable of doing things that Ueshiba could not?

I would like to think that if one produces students that gain a wide respect beyond their own limited area art than you have been a successful teacher.

Sort of stating the obvious to someone who has already considered it but the biggest problem is seeing the various students and of course Ueshiba M. and Takeda themselves at comparable times. It is really hard to make comparisons especially when some are long dead and legend has taken over.

What were Takeda or Ueshiba really capable of doing - was Shioda in his prime that much less then Ueshiba? Or conversely were certain student's capable of doing things that Ueshiba could not?

I would like to think that if one produces students that gain a wide respect beyond their own limited area art than you have been a successful teacher.

Of course it's hard. But at some point you have to take a look around and, based on your experience, make an opinion. It's not a thing that's ever likely to be proven objectively, but I think that it's important for all of us to try and make the assessment.

There are a number of people who have wide respect - but not much in the way of skills that I'm talking about. So, you could say that they are successful, and that their teacher has been successful - but I don't.

Abe was ten years before he left for Europe - much of that in Tokyo, and Ueshiba wasn't in Tokyo at that time. When Chiba was in Tokyo Ueshiba was not that active in teaching, although he was there a third to half the time.

When Shioda was there Ueshiba was personally involved in training the students - there were no other teachers, really.

Not that he was necessarily better than anybody else, but I thought it was kind of incredible to portray Shioda as someone who had a limited time with Ueshiba.

And again - if they're not getting it then, yes, they needed to tell them.There's nothing wrong with figuring it out on your own - but that would show in the results. The proof is in the pudding - it's meaningless to talk about creativity when your kid is flunking basic math.

Best,

Chris

Good morning Mr. Li,

I am pleased to tell you where I think were we are getting our lines crossed. The mentioned uchideshi had many years of training under the Founder. The amount of contact they had with the Founder was not always consistent. During the periods of time where the Founder was absent either permanently or intermittently the uchideshi worked on their own to improve their skill. How hard they worked, to what what extent they developed their skill is subject to opinion.

What am focusing on is the fact that they where not always teacher dependent, and worked independently to develop their own skill. Not how hard they worked at it. My focus is on the Founder who did worked more independently than dependently. His teachers passed on or where absent living the Founder to train and develop on his own. Didn't Takeda travel teaching intermittently from place to place, vs having a central dojo he taught out of? Isn't there stories of Takeda only showing a technique once without explanation? All his students including the Founder learned under these conditions, independently with significant absences of his teachers. All his teachers passed on before the Founder as well. This is the point I am making.

The Japanese word I am looking has escaped me that defines an intensive self training. The Founder did it by going up into the mountains to train isolation. Not being an Aikido historian, I hope someone will expand on the details. The reason it is being brought up is to point to the Founder was not teacher dependent for his skills. For him there where no other learning resource outside his initial teachers.The Founder trained on his own, developing his skill on his own. No one taught him dependently like today. In comparison, the instruction time and attention he received was very limited and short.

The independent path taken by the Founder proves to me, a student of Aikido, if willing, can improve on their own making great strides in their skill. If they are not told everything by a teacher it isn't an epic failure. Independent learning and the benefits, are over shadowed by the myth the path to success is teacher dependent. Where the student solely relies on the teacher to provide all the information, all the "secrets" of the art to the student under some unwritten obligation. Worse it has become the norm because we have convinced ourselves dependently learning is the only way to learn. The pandora box had been flung open because of that idea. People complain about their lack of skilI rushing to an outside quick fix that is just as teacher dependent. All without knowing they can fix it themselves, developing there own skill with time and effort. The proof of that success, in developing skill independently was shown by the Founder. But, many Aikido students don't see the Founder as such an example.

Students have been accustom to being milk feed information and their training coddled to such an extent they reach a point of feeling they have been cheated in someway out of key information by their instructors. Some students develop as sense of entitlement, making demands of information. The key here is to avoid that trap. Instead placing confidence in their own ability to develop skill on their own, obtaining the information on there own. Then any information from a teacher is useful. A teacher job's is to guide the student to their own success, not make it happen for the student.

It is the student's responsibility to take control of his own training and learning, under the guidance of the teacher. How much desire, how hungry a student is to improve, is based on that student's willingness to work for it. If a student is a poor practitioner it is because there was little effort placed toward his own development. How good a student become is up to the student, not the teacher.

This is why I think the Founder's teaching ability is without question. He was more open then his instructors with the information he obtained on his own. He encouraged his students to learn in his presences and absence, to develop on their own. To what level the students achieved is of debate, a debate am not comfortable engaging or feel necessary.

I am not a Aikido historian, but my searches have not revealed any instructional link between Shidoda and Horikawa. I have not found Shioda stating or his school mentioning there is an instructional link to Horiikiwa. The picture could just show a visit being made by Shioda who by that time was an established Aikido practitioner. It would be better evidence if a picture showed the two men training. Is there a picture of that?

What am focusing on is the fact that they where not always teacher dependent, and worked independently to develop their own skill. Not how hard they worked at it. My focus is on the Founder who did worked more independently than dependently. His teachers passed on or where absent living the Founder to train and develop on his own. Didn't Takeda travel teaching intermittently from place to place, vs having a central dojo he taught out of? Isn't there stories of Takeda only showing a technique once without explanation? All his students including the Founder learned under these conditions, independently with significant absences of his teachers. All his teachers passed on before the Founder as well. This is the point I am making.

The Japanese word I am looking has escaped me that defines an intensive self training. The Founder did it by going up into the mountains to train isolation. Not being an Aikido historian, I hope someone will expand on the details. The reason it is being brought up is to point to the Founder was not teacher dependent for his skills. For him there where no other learning resource outside his initial teachers.The Founder trained on his own, developing his skill on his own. No one taught him dependently like today. In comparison, the instruction time and attention he received was very limited and short.

Ueshiba trained with Takeda over a period of some 20 years - Takeda actually lived with him for 2. He had extensive contact and continuous training - that's all a matter of written record.

That's not to downplay training on your own - but "limited and short" is nowhere near accurate when describing Ueshiba's relationship with Takeda.

Quote:

Jackie Adams wrote:

This is why I think the Founder's teaching ability is without question. He was more open then his instructors with the information he obtained on his own. He encouraged his students to learn in his presences and absence, to develop on their own. To what level the students achieved is of debate, a debate am not comfortable engaging or feel necessary.

Whatever other great things a teacher does, whatever great ideas he has or tasks he accomplishes - his skills as a teacher have to be judged by the abilities of his students. If you can't form an opinion about that then there's no way that you'll really be able to evaluate his teaching abilities.

Quote:

Jackie Adams wrote:

I am not a Aikido historian, but my searches have not revealed any instructional link between Shidoda and Horikawa. I have not found Shioda stating or his school mentioning there is an instructional link to Horiikiwa. The picture could just show a visit being made by Shioda who by that time was an established Aikido practitioner. It would be better evidence if a picture showed the two men training. Is there a picture of that?

As I said, try searching for it - there's better than a picture, there's Shioda's signature in Kodo Horikawa's Emeiroku.

Ueshiba trained with Takeda over a period of some 20 years - Takeda actually lived with him for 2. He had extensive contact and continuous training - that's all a matter of written record.

That's not to downplay training on your own - but "limited and short" is nowhere near accurate when describing Ueshiba's relationship with Takeda.

Whatever other great things a teacher does, whatever great ideas he has or tasks he accomplishes - his skills as a teacher have to be judged by the abilities of his students. If you can't form an opinion about that then there's no way that you'll really be able to evaluate his teaching abilities.

As I said, try searching for it - there's better than a picture, there's Shioda's signature in Kodo Horikawa's Emeiroku.

Best,

Chris

Hello Mr. Li,

Oh, I see what you mean. I was wasn't specific. I was referring to the skill level's of the Founder's uchideshi. The Founder in my opinion would be better than I to deem which of his students are better than others in this instance. For me this type of discussion makes me uncomfortable. I am not the Founder. Not saying you are doing this, but such debates tend to get allot attention that comes to no end.

How many instructional days did the Founder have under Takeda. How many hours of instruction did the Founder log in with Takeda over those decades? This is something I don't know for sure, am not a historian. It is my believe Takeda traveled constantly all over Japan teaching spending somewhere between a few days and a week or some places a month teaching large groups periodically. Sessions lasted up to 6 or more hrs at a time. I know it is said Takeda was not a personable man. Takeda's Emeiroku I believe records how many hrs the Founder logged in. I hope someone with more knowledge than I can accurately provide that proper information.

If Shioda did train with Horikawa, per the Emeiroku do you know how many hrs Shioda logged in with Horikawa? That would be fascinating to see. Because there is nothing on the net that states Shioda trained with Horikawa, I found from Shioda's school. This is said inline with the fact I am not a historian. Shioda wasn't the only student of the Founder's who I believe made the effort himself, Minoru Mochizuki.

Concluding in brief, in any form of teaching or learning independent based learning has greater benefits than being completely teacher dependent learning. Because the Founder, I believe took the latter approach, and his teachers, is proof the Founder was an altruistic teacher that guided his students and didn't make them dependent on him for knowledge.

It has been a pleasure discussing this with you Mr. Li. Have a wonderful day.

I am pleased to tell you where I think were we are getting our lines crossed. The mentioned uchideshi had many years of training under the Founder. The amount of contact they had with the Founder was not always consistent. During the periods of time where the Founder was absent either permanently or intermittently the uchideshi worked on their own to improve their skill. How hard they worked, to what what extent they developed their skill is subject to opinion.

What am focusing on is the fact that they where not always teacher dependent, and worked independently to develop their own skill. Not how hard they worked at it. My focus is on the Founder who did worked more independently than dependently. His teachers passed on or where absent living the Founder to train and develop on his own. Didn't Takeda travel teaching intermittently from place to place, vs having a central dojo he taught out of? Isn't there stories of Takeda only showing a technique once without explanation? All his students including the Founder learned under these conditions, independently with significant absences of his teachers. All his teachers passed on before the Founder as well. This is the point I am making.

The Japanese word I am looking has escaped me that defines an intensive self training. The Founder did it by going up into the mountains to train isolation. Not being an Aikido historian, I hope someone will expand on the details. The reason it is being brought up is to point to the Founder was not teacher dependent for his skills. For him there where no other learning resource outside his initial teachers.The Founder trained on his own, developing his skill on his own. No one taught him dependently like today. In comparison, the instruction time and attention he received was very limited and short.

The independent path taken by the Founder proves to me, a student of Aikido, if willing, can improve on their own making great strides in their skill. If they are not told everything by a teacher it isn't an epic failure. Independent learning and the benefits, are over shadowed by the myth the path to success is teacher dependent. Where the student solely relies on the teacher to provide all the information, all the "secrets" of the art to the student under some unwritten obligation. Worse it has become the norm because we have convinced ourselves dependently learning is the only way to learn. The pandora box had been flung open because of that idea. People complain about their lack of skilI rushing to an outside quick fix that is just as teacher dependent. All without knowing they can fix it themselves, developing there own skill with time and effort. The proof of that success, in developing skill independently was shown by the Founder. But, many Aikido students don't see the Founder as such an example.

Students have been accustom to being milk feed information and their training coddled to such an extent they reach a point of feeling they have been cheated in someway out of key information by their instructors. Some students develop as sense of entitlement, making demands of information. The key here is to avoid that trap. Instead placing confidence in their own ability to develop skill on their own, obtaining the information on there own. Then any information from a teacher is useful. A teacher job's is to guide the student to their own success, not make it happen for the student.

It is the student's responsibility to take control of his own training and learning, under the guidance of the teacher. How much desire, how hungry a student is to improve, is based on that student's willingness to work for it. If a student is a poor practitioner it is because there was little effort placed toward his own development. How good a student become is up to the student, not the teacher.

This is why I think the Founder's teaching ability is without question. He was more open then his instructors with the information he obtained on his own. He encouraged his students to learn in his presences and absence, to develop on their own. To what level the students achieved is of debate, a debate am not comfortable engaging or feel necessary.

I am not a Aikido historian, but my searches have not revealed any instructional link between Shidoda and Horikawa. I have not found Shioda stating or his school mentioning there is an instructional link to Horiikiwa. The picture could just show a visit being made by Shioda who by that time was an established Aikido practitioner. It would be better evidence if a picture showed the two men training. Is there a picture of that?

Thank you. Hope everyone's day goes well and is enjoyable!

Dear Sir,
May I offer the term Shugyo which can be translated into intense training or a mindset in the present?Za Zen related. Or possibly the term Misogi , which is purification method usually done either by ascetic practice or again hard training Hope this helps, Cheers, Joe..

How many instructional days did the Founder have under Takeda. How many hours of instruction did the Founder log in with Takeda over those decades? This is something I don't know for sure, am not a historian. It is my believe Takeda traveled constantly all over Japan teaching spending somewhere between a few days and a week or some places a month teaching large groups periodically. Sessions lasted up to 6 or more hrs at a time. I know it is said Takeda was not a personable man. Takeda's Emeiroku I believe records how many hrs the Founder logged in. I hope someone with more knowledge than I can accurately provide that proper information.

If Shioda did train with Horikawa, per the Emeiroku do you know how many hrs Shioda logged in with Horikawa? That would be fascinating to see. Because there is nothing on the net that states Shioda trained with Horikawa, I found from Shioda's school. This is said inline with the fact I am not a historian. Shioda wasn't the only student of the Founder's who I believe made the effort himself, Minoru Mochizuki.

Concluding in brief, in any form of teaching or learning independent based learning has greater benefits than being completely teacher dependent learning. Because the Founder, I believe took the latter approach, and his teachers, is proof the Founder was an altruistic teacher that guided his students and didn't make them dependent on him for knowledge.

It has been a pleasure discussing this with you Mr. Li. Have a wonderful day.

This has all been laid out in Stan Pranin's work - starting back in the 1980's. I'm not going to go back and make the same arguments again.

This has all been laid out in Stan Pranin's work - starting back in the 1980's. I'm not going to go back and make the same arguments again.

Best,

Chris

I'm not sure how much more clearly you can attempt to lay it out and have it skated around... Props to you, because I'm exhausted just from reading it.

Ueshiba had a lot of students, a good many of which were serious in their training and looked high and low for the "secrets" both while he was alive and for decades after, yet only a handful have any notable measure of the skills that he had. There are only so many honest conclusions one can draw from that...

If you look back at the beginning of the long thread that you have entered at the end (and six months after it started), you will see that it is all about the teaching ability of Ueshiba, and whether he was actually able to transmit his skills consistently (or at all, really).

If he were able to do that then there should have been multiple students after him that reached or exceeded his level. They, in turn, would have students that met or exceeded them, and so on.

Hello Chris

Did Osensei's teacher (Takeda) produce multiple students after him who reached or exceeded his level? Did their students in turn produce students who reached or exceeded Takeda's level? How about the likes of Hisa, who started Daito-ryu under Ueshiba then went on to study it under Takeda, got promoted then later taught it as aikido saying it was the same thing? Did both award him ranks for abilities he had not attained?

Quote:

Christopher Li wrote:

I said that I saw a great many of Ueshiba's senior students, and their students in Japan, and that was not, IMO, the case.

Many of us have become familiar with the acronym IHTBF. Did you feel a great many of Ueshiba's senior students? It is conceivable that Takeda and Ueshiba gave out recognition of ability in the form or ranks or scrolls without regard for the reality. However, if we assume that they did care a little about how people who would represent them would be able to perform, I have the following question for you: How can you tell that these students didn't get the goods when Ueshiba apparently thought they had? In other words, what can you recognise the absence of in his students that Ueshiba could not? CMA skills? Kokyu-ryoku?

Quote:

Carl Thompson wrote:

Quote:

Carl Thompson wrote:

Was he a "great teacher" (an "Osensei") only because he provided the subject to be taught? In other words, I'm asking if he didn't understand basic teaching methods or was too crazy to stick to them. Or did he actually have some degree of pedagogical skill? In the latter case, did he deliberately choose not to use it in order to keep the goods to himself?

What do people think? Better still, can you back it up?

Carl

There seems to be a consensus that Osensei had certain goods himself. I appreciate the study people are doing into how similar skills are found elsewhere but if you find him consistently recognising people for their aikido ability without passing on a particular essential training method there could be a number of reasons. One is that his training method was different. Another is that it was the same as these other arts and he was not competent at passing it on (which begs the question, who was competent?). The ideas that he didn't care or was too lost in his religious pursuits have also been mentioned.

Did Osensei's teacher (Takeda) produce multiple students after him who reached or exceeded his level? Did their students in turn produce students who reached or exceeded Takeda's level? How about the likes of Hisa, who started Daito-ryu under Ueshiba then went on to study it under Takeda, got promoted then later taught it as aikido saying it was the same thing? Did both award him ranks for abilities he had not attained?

That's a hard question to answer, since he was much less visible than Ueshiba. Generally speaking, I'd be of the opinion that Takeda was not a great teacher either although, like Ueshiba, he was apparently quite inspiring. It might even be possible to make the argument that the problem with transmission was partially due to Takeda, since Ueshiba quite deliberately imitated him in so many ways (right down to the titles).

Quote:

Carl Thompson wrote:

Many of us have become familiar with the acronym IHTBF. Did you feel a great many of Ueshiba's senior students? It is conceivable that Takeda and Ueshiba gave out recognition of ability in the form or ranks or scrolls without regard for the reality. However, if we assume that they did care a little about how people who would represent them would be able to perform, I have the following question for you: How can you tell that these students didn't get the goods when Ueshiba apparently thought they had? In other words, what can you recognise the absence of in his students that Ueshiba could not? CMA skills? Kokyu-ryoku?

Some of them I have and some of them I haven't. I don't know that he that he thought that they had the goods. There were menkyo kaiden awarded after just a couple of years, and after the war it wasn't uncommon for people to find themselves suddenly promoted to 8th dan - more than once.

Don't get me wrong - Ueshiba has some very skilled students. But the ones that got what they got don't seem to know how they got it - and because of that were unable to pass the thing on effectively. We're at an important time right now where we can see the effects of three or four generations of transmission in a large range of people.

Quote:

Carl Thompson wrote:

There seems to be a consensus that Osensei had certain goods himself. I appreciate the study people are doing into how similar skills are found elsewhere but if you find him consistently recognising people for their aikido ability without passing on a particular essential training method there could be a number of reasons. One is that his training method was different. Another is that it was the same as these other arts and he was not competent at passing it on (which begs the question, who was competent?). The ideas that he didn't care or was too lost in his religious pursuits have also been mentioned.

Regards,

Carl

I think that it was the combination of a lot of things. More on that later, maybe...

Not to be a thread killer. Not to take anything from Mr. Li's brilliant research on the subject.
But a lot (not all) (maybe unknowable) of the founder's teaching ability and who taught what to whom, and also who went to who for what, including lineages up and down the time lines of aikido and daito ryu is laid out in Ellis's Amdur's book , "Hidden in Plain Sight". Having just finished reading it in what maybe the first of many times( yes my head is still throbbing), it is illuminating a little bit about this very subject.
What I took from it in first go around, is separation between the teaching of technique or waza and that unseen quality (hidden in plain sight) which is most likely internal strength, internal power .
The founder's younger days it seems, or so I am told(which are provable because of meticulous Japanese record keeping) were filled with a wide ranging vocabulary of techniques and teachers and arts.
And on that front it seems when time came to write it down, Saito sensei filled the bill quite nicely and almost 1000 techniques (with aiki ken and aiki jo added in) were codified in Iwama. A veritable perfect score of Aikido SAT vocabulary or technique. Pretty sucessful there.
On the other hand, the ability to teach and then do the waza on uncooperative opponents or downright hostile foes(using IP or IS) seems to have been either lacking on the part of the teacher AND OR or the students . How many of the 3rd generation students and teachers in Aikido are taking on all comers in this manner? ( like to study with you )
Clearly there were deschi of O'sensei saying in his later years, " we didn't know what He was talking about". And then there are the films of people bouncing off him , and what appear to be shock waves being generated far greater than what seem possible for a 5 foot tall and change man.
So there is the showing and telling of this quality. Teacher taught, but not do A + B +C and you will definitely arrive with D and also D by the way is tapping into the infinite power of the universe.
You know of course that as soon as that last sentence left my fingertips, I realized that he also did say exactly what D was........
Back then to the original point, it is all out there, I never had a lesson with O'sensei, maybe a couple of classes with direct deschi of his, and there was no mention of anything other than technique, once I became an earnest student more was discovered and more also was thought to be given.....
Its a moot point, and I think it is more up to oneself now.......
I hope that I did some justice to Ellis's book and Chris's research, not to mention many others, and eagerly await clarifications, and corrections as it will be awhile before I delve into this rabbit hole again
Thx
Greg

Last edited by Garth : 04-03-2012 at 08:06 PM.

￼￼￼￼￼￼A day will dawn when you will yourself laugh at your effort. That which is on the day of laughter is also now.
Ramana Maharishi

Not to be a thread killer. Not to take anything from Mr. Li's brilliant research on the subject.
But a lot (not all) (maybe unknowable) of the founder's teaching ability and who taught what to whom, and also who went to who for what, including lineages up and down the time lines of aikido and daito ryu is laid out in Ellis's Amdur's book , "Hidden in Plain Sight". Having just finished reading it in what maybe the first of many times( yes my head is still throbbing), it is illuminating a little bit about this very subject.

Not taking away anything - HIPS is the gold standard.

Ellis was nice enough to include me in the acknowledgements - but I don't think that I really contributed very much.

Despite the recently popular mantra the essence of Aikido being the same as Daito-ryu, in reality the most important parts of Ueshiba's training didn't come from Takeda. His martial skills were never separate from his religious practices regardless how often profane western ‘logic' desires otherwise to reduce the physical from the spiritual or the spiritual from the physical.

We can see Takeda in this photo at 80 years old, knowingly with few years left to live, deciding to provide an ostentatious display of ‘power' during one of the few opportunities to record his image. His other photos late in life only show a wretched expression, a man embittered by his hollow mastering of separation for martial gain. The visual similarity between some taijitsu forms belie the actual polarity of their ways. Certainly Ueshiba felt sorry for his former teacher who never realized a higher level of power. In the 21st century I would've assumed common sense among Aikidoka a desire for the pursuit of power, as many here openly seek, without irony is the greatest limiting factor in its attainment.

Despite the recently popular mantra the essence of Aikido being the same as Daito-ryu, in reality the most important parts of Ueshiba's training didn't come from Takeda. His martial skills were never separate from his religious practices regardless how often profane western ï¿½logic' desires otherwise to reduce the physical from the spiritual or the spiritual from the physical.

We can see Takeda in this photo at 80 years old, knowingly with few years left to live, deciding to provide an ostentatious display of ï¿½power' during one of the few opportunities to record his image. His other photos late in life only show a wretched expression, a man embittered by his hollow mastering of separation for martial gain. The visual similarity between some taijitsu forms belie the actual polarity of their ways. Certainly Ueshiba felt sorry for his former teacher who never realized a higher level of power. In the 21st century I would've assumed common sense among Aikidoka a desire for the pursuit of power, as many here openly seek, without irony is the greatest limiting factor in its attainment.

No question that Takeda was a complex character. As to the expressions - he had a sour expression because he got some of his teeth knocked out in a spear fight, and he was embarrassed to show his mouth.

Anyway, accusations of ostentation have been made about this picture too, but I'm not sure what either picture has to do with the issue of whether or not Ueshiba was able to successfully transmit his skills.

No question that Takeda was a complex character. As to the expressions - he had a sour expression because he got some of his teeth knocked out in a spear fight, and he was embarrassed to show his mouth.

Anyway, accusations of ostentation have been made about this picture too, but I'm not sure what either picture has to do with the issue of whether or not Ueshiba was able to successfully transmit his skills.

Best,

Chris

How old was Takeda when he got his teeth knocked out? People with teeth missing can still smile while keeping the mouth closed.

That 'picture' looks like Ueshiba pre-war to me, he didn't fully realize Aikido till post-war. I bring up the differences between Ueshiba and Takeda because they had little in common regardless of the opposite being asserted here often.